Creator & Critic Explore Creation & Critique (Part 4 of 4)

Here is the final installment of our four part series discussing the relationship between creators and critics.

Ryan: Okay, Claytor’s Final Thoughts; a critic should educate, entertain, and promote. I’m even going to go out on a limb and say in that order (of importance).

First, both the readers and the creators should be a bit more in the know after reading a review. The reviewer, in my humble opinion, should be able to educate readers on the basic genre, story-telling approach, and competency with which a book was created. With this information, the consumer can decide whether or not this is a product to further research and possibly purchase. The reviewer should also be able to educate the creators by giving an unbiased report on how the material is being received. As a creator, as much as I solicit feedback before publishing my work, it will inevitably be read by people with some sort of connection to me. It’s nice to get a thoughtful, constructive critique from a more objective source.

Next, I always hope that the reviews are written intelligently and with a bit of fun. If the recount is simply unexamined opinions, dry facts, or the dreaded blow-by-blow account of what happens in the book, then I’m likely to look somewhere else for my reviews.

Finally, regardless of whether or not you see “money” as a dirty word in the art world, the fact of the matter is; if creators do not make money from their art, they cannot keep making art. It’s as simple as that. Reviewers help creators promote their work. Sorry to be blunt, but we wouldn’t give you free copies of our books if there wasn’t some potential return for us. So, in this way, I view it as a symbiotic relationship. You get free books, we (hopefully) get our art in front of more eyes.

How about yourself? I’d like to hear the reviewer’s definition of a reviewer, too. Hopefully there’s a bit of overlap? or I’m way off base. :)

Justin: There's plenty of overlap, I think we just use slightly different language to describe the ideal critical experience. I like your "educate, entertain, promote" trifecta. For me, the ideal guidelines would look something like this;

* On the spectrum of review (simple dry plot summary), critique (what's working, what's not), and analysis (deep dive for meaning), I like the space in between critique and analysis.
* I, too, prefer reviews that are accessible yet smart, but not cloud-pushingly obtuse. When I did some writing for Savant Magazine, we used to say "intelligent, but not condescending."
* Reviews should champion good work and the industry in general as a vital, vibrant lab of creative and illuminating thought.
* Reviews should ideally entertain. I'll use Abhay Khosla as an example here, some of his reviews are more entertaining that the actual books he's writing about.
* Reviews should enable consumer decision making, or at least encourage further investigation as you mentioned.
* Reviews should also provide information for creators on how the work is being received.

I think, in part, you represent the audience. But, you are also championing the work - it's the ultimate in match-maker mentality. "Book A, meet Consumer B. Book A likes skydiving, jazz, and is very much a foodie. Consumer B enjoys long walks on the beach, travel, and speaks fluent Italian. You two are perfect for each other!"

Anyway, that list isn't very polished, but it feels complete from my perspective. Now, I'd like to briefly touch on some other examples I've found.

Exhibit A: This one is excerpted from American poet W.H. Auden (1907-1973), part of his "Aphorisms in Reading." While he intended them to function as goalposts for literary criticism, I think they apply nicely.

"What is the Function of a Critic?

* To highlight creators or works which the audience was unaware of previously or had not been exposed to
* To cause further consideration of a creator or work that is undervalued because the audience had not read them carefully enough
* To illustrate relationships between works that the audience didn’t see because of their relatively limited scope of material consumed
* To provide explanation of a creator or work that increases the audience’s understanding of it
* To examine the process of producing (writing, penciling, inking, coloring, lettering, publishing, selling, etc.) art
* To demonstrate the relationship of art to any aspect of life"

Now these are all very well reasoned and I like how they're segregated into identifiable tracks, but they also feel very academic, almost cold and clinical. I also think that this is possibly dated by today's standards because there's no mention of "To entertain," which I think could modernize it a bit, taking into account the web and other contemporary venues.

Exhibit B: With apologies to Anton, The Animated Food Critic!

"Sometimes I think that being a critic is easy. You don’t really risk anything. You stand aside those who have created something, judging a piece of their soul that they’ve sacrificed and put out into the world. People are delighted with negative reviews because they’re fun to write and fun to read. Only occasionally does a critic have an opportunity to take on a risk. It’s in the positive review that defends something new and different. The world is harsh on new and different things; they need friends. That’s why I’ll continue to defend (insert book x) as nothing short of brilliant."

This one is a little touchy feely, but it's not surprising since it's actually a quote from Anton the Food Critic in Disney's Ratatouille(!) What I like about it is that it vehemently understands the cause of championing work, attacks snark for the sake of itself, and sometimes I think people on both sides of the aisle assume that being a "critic" means you only say negative things, when it's actually not about that at all.

Exhibit C: Lastly, we have a sound byte from John Spencer Bassett (1867-1928) which originally appeared in the New York Times in 1904. He was a history professor at Duke University, but wrote quite a few socially charged articles for East Coast newspapers.

"The critic stands for change. He is dissatisfied with some of the things which he sees around him. He cannot believe that some of the popular things are right or advantageous to the industry; he cannot believe that some of the unpopular things are not more appreciated or even revered, and believing that he can’t, without violating the sacred nature of his own conscience, keep from offering his thoughts."

What I like about this one is the self-identification as an agent of change. The idea that critical discourse can have some impact on the public, a "taste maker" as some of the old-school music critics used to say. It also speaks to the passion behind the work, writing because you're just compelled to share your thoughts.

I've looked at MANY definitions, and these are the select few that stood out as thought-provoking. Is it odd that the ones I gravitated to are decades old? Does anything here jump out at you as we end our "educational, entertaining, and promotional" discussion? Haha!

Ryan: At the risk of sounding complacent, it all sounds pretty darn reasonable. I think we more or less agree on the matter. (Sounds like more than less.)

I’d just like to say that I love the variety of sources you pulled from to make your point. I’m always preaching to my classes to look EVERYWHERE for inspiration (for their comics), not just at comics themselves. I show examples of 14th century etchings and stained-glass cathedral windows all the way up to covers of Newsweek and Giant Robot Magazine (in addition to comic industry examples, of course).

To sum things up, I feel that much like our last conversation, this one has challenged me again and honed my thoughts on the creator/critic relationship. I think I’ll purposefully not use a “vs.” between creator AND critic anymore as it seems to set up that adversarial connotation we’d both like to avoid. So, thanks again for another engaging chat about our beloved industry and exploring the relationship between a couple of its cogs. My insecure worry is whether or not we bore people to sleep before the end of our conversation. I suppose the comments (or lack thereof) will speak to that. In the meantime, thanks again for pushing me and I look forward to our next go-round.